Research Policy, [e-journal] 11 3 , pp. Sources, Procedures , and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of economic literature, 26 3 , pp. Substantive and procedural uncertainty, An exploration of economic behaviours in changing environments. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, [e-journal] 1 2 , pp. Escobar-Sierra, M. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Florida, R. Toward the learning region. Futures, [e-journal] 27 5 , pp. Freeman, C. Networks of innovators: a synthesis of research issues. Research Policy, [e-journal] 20 5 , pp.
Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In: D. Preece, I. McLoughlin and P. Dawson, eds. Technology, Organizations and Innovation: Theories, concepts and paradigms. London: Pinter. Gann, D. Building innovation: Complex constructs in a changing world. London: Thomas Telford Publishing. Guadamillas, F. Hadjimanolis, A. The barriers approach to innovation. The international handbook on innovation.
Hashimoto, M. Hobday, M. Dynamic networks, technology diffusion and complementary assets: Explaining U. Honkasalo, A. Eco-efficiency, Entrepreneurship and co-operation: the finnish environmental cluster research programme. In: OECD, ed. Innovation and the Environment. Paris: OECD. Eure Santiago , [e-journal] 37 , pp. Keeble, D. Keeble and F. Wilkinson, eds. Aldershot: Ashgate. Kirat, T. Innovation and proximity. Territories as loci of collective learning processes. European Urban and Regional Studies, [e-journal] 6 1 , pp. Kline, S. An overview of innovation.
Landau and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington: National Academy Press. Klonoski, R. Foundational considerations in the corporate social responsibility debate. Business Horizons, 34 4 , pp. Lau, T. Y, The entrepreneurial behaviour inventory: A simulated incident method to assess corporate entrepreneurship. Lawson, C. Collective learning, system competences and epistemically significant moments.
Longhi, C. High-tech clusters and collective learning in Europe: regional evolutionary trends in the s. Lundvall, B. National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Macleod, G. The cult of enterprise in a networked, learning region? Governing business and skills in lowland Scotland. Regional Studies, [e-journal] 30 8 , pp. Marceau, J. Berlin: De Gruyter studies in organization. Marinova, D. Models of innovation. McFadzean, E. Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation part 1: the missing link. European Journal of Innovation Management, [e-journal] 8 3 , pp.
Revista EURE, [e-journal] 28 84 , pp.
Merton, R. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Metcalfe, J. Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Cambridge Journal of Economics, [e-journal] 19 1 , pp. Morgan, J.
Problems in the analysis of survey data and a proposal. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58 , pp. Nelson, R.
Articles and Papers - GLORAD Center for Global R&D and Innovation
National innovation systems. In: Z. Regional Innovation, Knowledge and Global Change. Parslow, R. The warpy thoughts scale: a new item instrument to measure dysfunctional attitudes. Cognitive behaviour therapy, [e-journal] 35 2 , pp. Pavitt, K. Management Science, 35 1 , pp. Perez, C. Futures, [e-journal] 15 5 , pp. Pernelle, P. PLM serious game approach available both for change management and knowledge assessment.
- Jan Fagerberg.
- Silent Madness.
- Join Kobo & start eReading today!
In: S. Fukuda, A. Bernard, B. Gurumoorthy and A. Bouras, eds. Product Lifecycle Management for a Global Market. PLM Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Sector industrial autopartes y vehiculos. Reinig, B. Putting quality first in ideation research. Nevertheless, from the point of view of STS, the problem of innovation can never be separated from the non-technological aspects. To prove this point, STS researcher Lucy Suchman, gives us the example of the Xerox photocopying machine, developed with a high degree of detail in her important book Human-Machine Reconfigurations What part belongs to whom?
Returning to the classification of assets made by the PFI program, and in a sort of self-reflection about his work, Teece , p. It is clear that the lineaments to collect and interpret data on innovation observed in the Oslo Manual show a deep agreement with this conceptualization and classification of assets.
56 Series Titles
The manual has a theoretical framework that puts together a heterogeneous group of innovation authors and theorists. The works about innovation management developed by Dodgson and by Dodgson, Gann and Phillips align perfectly with that way of understanding innovation. The Oslo Manual becomes the way in which innovation studies and innovation management studies institutionalize a mixture at the political-social level, and the management work that the firms do when managing their innovation. Certainly, the classification of assets made by innovation management presents a very particular way of understanding the industry where the innovation will be developed by the firms.
The authors show that this type of tools are active in the world, i. The argument is that the matrix works in a performative way with the reader of this particular mixture of innovation studies, competitive strategy, and management and organizational studies MOS. The translation from economic sociology of the thesis about the performativity of economy toward a performativity of management theories has been made also in the field of management, and particularly, in strategic management.
In fact, this has been a widely discussed topic within the current literature on administrative sciences. An example of the application of strategic management of these ideas is seen in the work of Kornberger and Clegg , and also in Cabantous and Gond The work of Kornberger and Clegg focuses on the practice of strategy in the particular project that aims for the sustainability of the city of Sydney in Australia by On the other hand, and supporting the thesis of performativity, the study carried out by Cabantous and Gond proves that the rationality operating in strategic management is produced from an engineering, commoditization, and conventionalization of the actors, theories, and tools that underlie the decisions and the management.
The authors supporting the performativity thesis of management theories prove then that strategy is performative when analyzed from its practice, constituting the subjects who carry out the practice and giving particular shapes to the object it manages. It is worth mentioning that given that this study aims not to address the problem of the performativity in strategic management in general, but the one that arises from the theories of innovation management. It leaves this discussion out of the analysis, which according to the author, has a broader nature. However, as shown by Gond, Cabantous, Harding et al.
In particular, and building on that discovery, this text will theorize about a performative understanding of innovation management, filling in this way the theoretical gap explained in the introduction. In that sense, and following the idea of performativity developed by Callon, innovation management studies are, at least in some way, constituting the subjects who do innovation and giving particular shapes to the very object of innovation management.
This is an approximation which makes the phenomenon of innovation management emerge with unique characteristics. In this text, we propose that those who participate in management should advocate for the use of a rather more complex matrix than the one present in the literature on innovation management.
A matrix able to capture the fluency and ambiguity of the social world. Only then it will be possible to generate a more general explanation about the phenomenon of technological innovation management. Such matrix should reflect in a careful way, all those assumptions coming from the theory and the classifications made by the researcher. The matrix used makes the invisible visible, and creatively links innovation studies theory with the literature on management, and in particular, strategic management. As Bowker and Star have commented, classifications and categories are material and symbolic tools.
These important authors of the field of STS add that the community rebuilds and continually reshapes those tools and the related classifications. This is why it is possible to understand that the relationships between innovators and followers-imitators need to be observed as emerging entities and thus, they can change in the industrial and temporal dynamic. Precisely, the question about how imitators and innovators emerge demands to be put in the center of the analysis.
The examination of the construction of the matrix requires a look at history and the development of the categories of innovation and the identities of the innovator and the imitator. Innovation management has become a mixture that connects spaces such as the best business schools in the world with ex post cases of successful innovators this is, those companies that have managed to extract higher rents from a technological innovation.
The theoretical framework of the three views which Dodgson, Gann and Phillips refer to is aligned with conceptual frameworks for public policies such as the classifications enacted in the Oslo Manual. This mixture of actors who carry out innovation policy and inform the decisions of top-notch students in the world is powerful. The mixture shows a continuum between the analysis at an innovation management level in the firms and those aggregated economic levels. It is a continuum where the micro-macro distinction has been overcome and it is not problematized.
This framework is the one that explains many of the innovation policies in different countries, where the discourse about innovation and business venture is increasingly relevant, both at the public policy and the private practice levels. Although more interpretative and emergent, the turn of innovation management proposed by design thinking can advance a more complex approach considering its own methodology performativity.
Is this constructivist aspect that STS have and the development they have made in the concept of performativity what would allow to build a bridge to think, in a more reflexive way, the tools and theories used in innovation management, from its traditional economic and strategic matrix, passing also through the new trends in design thinking.
The question What view of innovation management can be then built from the deconstruction made by STS? This leads to an alternative to innovation management that respects the original concept of innovation, i. In this way, it is possible to lead this study toward an analysis that take into account the meticulous and repetitive work behind it. A possible solution is to open the practices of said process in order to open innovation management studies to organizations, which is what is proposed in this reflection.
Such an approximation to the study of innovation is achieved by analyzing the interaction between the entities that constitute the network of relationships that participate in the event that is technological innovation management. Pickering demands then the study of mundane activities, such as the ones done by professionals in a repetitive way in their daily routines. In this way, those aspects related to novelty and those from the breaking with tradition within the phenomenon of innovation can be known and understood. To open the black box implies to look at the continuum between tradition and novelty as the center and main difficulty in technological innovation management.
Although Dodgson, Gann and Phillips only superficially comment on the importance of users in the development of innovation management, the handbook they edited has a chapter related to user-based innovation. On the contrary, to constructivisticly understand innovation management would imply to take the already old call that the original development of the actor-network theory seriously.
This analysis strongly sympathizes with the idea that open knowledge will in fact allow better innovation developments. Moreover, it can be understood to some extent, that the division between technological, specialized, and complementary assets do not resist, at least partly, when the innovation can be openly done. The point already established by Pisano is then collected, when he reflects on the idea of PFI and dynamic capabilities, the two analytical lenses upon which innovation management has been built. The problem of the separation of the social and the technological is still present in recent approximations, such as the democratization of innovation and open innovation.
The STS expert shows us that the turn from an interpretative towards a reflexive technology understanding, displays a very different epistemology in order to understand it. The reflexive version allows to understand technology from a, say, agnostic position in the ontological. Without a doubt, the reflexivity and relationality mentioned by Woolgar join the performativity of management theories, blurring the complete picture of convergence presented by strategic management, innovation, and design thinking.
Paraphrasing the important STS researcher Steve Woolgar, it is crucial to understand that the ideas of those who develop an innovation must be considered at the same level as technology. With this, we break the classification of technological and complementary assets that crosses the field of innovation management. In Box 1 , it is presented a summary of the possibilities that STS offers to innovation management. Source: Elaborated by the author. A constructivist type of approximation that consider reflexivity in order to analyze the technology phenomenon and the performativity of innovation management theories, allows to ask other types of questions, such as: What are the material conditions under which we can act as if we were innovators?
This question promotes an analysis of the activity itself and not only the economic result of competitive strategies. In consequence, the question about the epistemological foundations of innovation management finally leads us to the joint collection of aspects linked to the material and non-material relationships that exist among the entities that produce the phenomenon of technological innovation management. In this way, the inquiry goes into the study of the detailed elections made by those who design new technological products. A theory that has developed under STS and that meet several of the conditions in order to look at innovation management with constructivist, relational, and reflexive lenses is the so-called Actor-Network Theory LATOUR, From this theory, we understand any entity as constituted in the interaction with other entities, be it subjects or objects.
As a consequence, and as anticipated by the end of the previous section, technological innovation and strategic management become a very different activity and business from the one established by innovation management literature. More than a fixed entity, the manager of innovation is mediated by objects in a network of entities.
As Ekbia and Nardi have commented, in such process the objects are at the center of the construction of the subject - the parallelism between these authors approximation and Serres is truly remarkable. The process of objectivation explains how a particular technology - for example, a management technology or a technology - based product - will define the innovator in its co-development. However, the interesting symmetric-relational and constructivist approach that the Actor-Network theory gives us in the comprehension of the innovation management phenomenon is not enough to provide a critical alternative to the same.
As Hull and Kaghan have commented, innovation is deeply linked with the organizational phenomenon and with management. Consequently, the authors call for the creation of a line of research that questions the effects of any new technology and, in general, of the innovative processes in those who do the work and are connected as stakeholders in the organization that is developing such change. This is because the great absentee in innovation management theories is work and the inequitable way in which the benefits of the innovation done between capital and work are distributed.
In fact, Hull and Kaghan acknowledge that the criticism suggesting a pro-innovation bias that exists in the literature, tends to separate also the technical from the social, as if these elements constitute two different avenues This point, already discussed in the section on innovation management and the following one on STS, remains a constant in a significant portion of CMS, which insist on such analytical separation. This separation must be subject to scrutiny in the research process because, as Michel Callon and Bruno Latour have commented, from STS, the classification that determines what is social and what is technical is an issue in itself.
It is not possible then take said classification for granted. On the contrary, organizations need to pay close attention to the tendency toward abstraction that is produced when thinking about the complexity demanded by the relationship between the social and the technical as cited in SPOELSTRA, As Spoelstra , p. This relational approach to the study of organizations promotes a process where the relationship between entities - subjects and objects - produces the phenomenon of technological innovation and, in general, all phenomena in which organizations are involved.
Said classification, which underlies the work of innovation management, already explained in previous sections, is a well-known aspect in STS, but as stated above, it is less accepted in CMS traditions. In fact, the approaches to the Actor-Network which are at the center of the STS tradition have been strongly criticized and accused of a total lack of potential to intervene in terms of the debates about innovation and organization Whittle and Spicer, Technological management and innovation are not apart, nor one dominates the other. Kaghan adds that the literature of the ANT has produced very useful concepts in order to understand said process.
Technological innovations are objects that play an important role in the relationships between production and consumption. Quite the contrary, every new technological innovation created emerges out of a long process. This is why invention and innovation force a negotiation and renegotiation between a group of heterogeneous entities, as happens in any process of technological change.
Within this approximation, money is a device that can be considered as an intermediary in the exchange. Money then will have all the characteristics that Serres gives to an intermediary, and that later Latour captures in the concept of intersubjectivity, already explained in this text. As a corollary, a critical approximation to the irreductionist -constructivist- approach will include the process of commodification, paying special attention to the moral, economic, technological, and natural aspects, as well as to social interactions and their peculiarities.
A program that seek a constructivist and critical analysis of innovation management allows us to look at the unexpected effects of the management that is done to generate new products, organizational improvements, or any other kind of innovation. This type of approximation seems very far from the program that classifies the assets of a firm into technological and complementary. The differences between the constructivist-critical paradigm and the innovation management tradition are certainly epistemological and political.
In the constructivist-critical paradigm, a product, an organizational process, or even a new business model, exist within a network of heterogeneous actants, where material and non-material entities gradually shape it. Innovation is then a punctualization, a relational effect, affecting at the same time, other entities that participate in the network of relationships where it participates. Although the innovation management paradigm recognizes the great importance that the relationships and the contracts between the actors in the value chain have, such approximation never problematizes the relationship between the social and the material which constitute the innovation that emerges in the process in question.
An author who has maintained before that there is a relationship between process philosophy and Marx, is Anne Fairchild Pomeroy. The philosopher has explained in detail how abstractions, such as work, entail an ontological mistake. Likewise, the Marxist labor theory of value explains the impossibility of denying the irreducible relationality - irreductionism - of the abstractions made based on dialectical moments of actual practice. As a consequence, in the practice, categories are a mixture.
Whitehead , p. Said fallacy consists in considering the human being as a complete, realized, established entity and the actual result of a process that has taken place in the past. Which not totally incorrect, but incomplete. Pomeroy states that commit this fallacy is, in some way, being ruled by those abstractions. The fallacy then leads us to think that humans exist outside the processes.
Leadership for Innovation in Healthcare: An Exploration
Consequently, and taking into account that the aim of capitalism is the valuation of value - or, put another way, the expansion 1 of surplus value - that is made in the productive process when an exchange value is abstracted from its use, it is possible to conclude that capitalism relies on valuation, based on the aforesaid abstraction, and that it is an active and living form upon which said fallacy is built.
In other words, the surplus value logic has always required the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. The study of economization may be seen as a program to understand the most critical aspects that are generated in the technological innovation process. At the core of this constructivist-critical program, to understand how the process of commodification is done and how the heterogeneous entities it comprises participate in it will be sought.
In this way, it will be intended to avoid the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, which Pomeroy warns us about. In order to understand technological innovation management in the context of the creation of new products, it will be necessary to scrutinize the process by which work human activity, in a broader sense is intertwined with the objects that those who work use and produce. If we do not do this, we are at risk of abstraction and immediately leading the results toward a fallacy that look at humans being outside the process they carry out.
Obviously, the constructivist approximations such as ANT, must be problematic when the question moves toward the study of the identity of the worker and other humans who participate in the organizational phenomenon. It is not possible then to get rid so easily of concepts like subjectivity. The sense of self-identity demands a thorough and meticulous study. Notwithstanding, a constructivist and critical program moves us to solve several of the problems that the innovation management approximation offers.
Firstly, the problem of the subject who participates in the technological innovation process, and that is related to its management. For the innovation management program, the subject is certainly not part of the problem. Following an individualistic and non-reflexive economic configuration -homo economicus- innovation management builds a model that separates the subject from the object developed by the subject itself. This criticism echoes other areas of economy, where such separation has been strongly criticized by the performativist economic sociology program CALLON, This article aimed to generate a discussion and theoretical reflection about the way in which innovation management can be understood and researched.
After said reflection, it is observed that the approximations to innovation management generate or enact - as Law would say - or even perform - as Callon and the performativists in the world where those practices are carried out would say. Is this performative power the one that should be taken into account when we theorize innovation, and particularly, its management. As we have seen, approximations like the PFI program and the one of dynamic capabilities, are at the center of the modern literature on innovation management.
To consider the performativity of the frames upon which innovation management is built, and hence the type of world being built when they propose classifying into innovators and followers, is an aspect that STS allow to better understand. Moreover, the approximations and tools on which the literature on innovation management has been built, should consider, at least in part, a fair reflexivity regarding its generative power on innovation managers. The argument of the text is that the way in which innovation management has been conceptualized is based on a very particular classification of the assets - technological and complementary - involved in the process of innovation.
Said classification has been maintained over time as to linking innovation with the very business models of a firm. From a critical and constructivist analysis, a deconstruction that aimed at showing a non-dualist management of innovation, from Science, Technology and Society Studies STS was carried out. Even though the reflexive effort of using STS to understand innovation management is an improvement compared to the application of the current lenses of innovation management, the reflexivity developed through the use of STS, and the analysis that these enable are not enough.
In order to understand many of the unexpected effects of innovation management, a critical program is needed, that is to say, a program where the constructivism showed by the performativity of the ideas and material objects meets the study of economization and the deconstruction of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. This is the project that this text has started to outline.
Regarding the suggestions for future studies, it can be deduced from the presentation here made, that open and democratic innovation is seen as an interesting subject for the empirical work. This is because it decenters the purely homo economicus approach, which is generally considered as naturalized in innovation management literature.
From there, to study the mechanisms that explain the participation, how those who manage the creation of new technologies work and operate, understanding that the relationship between subjects and objects is closely linked to the ideas and theories with which these managers comprehend the world. If we want to build an economic system where people and nature be considered as central axes of it, a constructivist and critical approximation allows the necessary descentralization of innovation as an emerging process of purely human nature.
Another area that a constructivist and critical theory of innovation may contribute to from a empirical point of view, is the one related to the innovation of organizational processes and the innovation of management practices. The problem of innovation management has increasingly been considered in the field of organizations and business literature. Concerning the methodology, there is still much to be done. Specifying, for example, methodologies to follow a road that allow to undertake empiric studies for the constructivist-critical approximation.
Together with the methodology, it is also necessary to move toward a comprehension of practice that allow those who do the process of managing innovation, reflecting on their job. It is here where the constructivist and critical approximation outlined in this text has to be used more carefully. This is because, even if it is clear that in order to solve the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, it is necessary to decenter the subject, this does not imply that we should forget about the same.
Staying in the interstice, that is, the mixture of the technical and the social, the blend of objects and subjects, it is possible that the analyst can have greater clarity in the process that makes engineers, technicians, and managers be what they are within the organizations they work at.
https://beikerarara.cf From there, it will be a little more attainable the necessary reflexivity that can become the basis for a deeper change in the work-capital relationship for the generation of new innovations. This is the invitation extended by this constructivist-critical approximation. This would be the first step to build a plausible alternative to making innovation management.
The key to success in innovation Part I: the art of interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management, v. Cambridge: MIT Press, London: Sage, Social Studies of Science, v. How is technology made? Cambridge Journal of Economics, v. Management innovation. Academy of management Review, v. Sorting things out: classification and its consequences inside technology.
Boston: MIT Press, Change by design. Boston: Harper Collins Publishers, Economization, part 2: a research programme for the study of markets. Economy and Society, v. Economic markets and the rise of interactive agencements: from prosthetic agencies to habilitated agencies. Living in a material world: economic sociology meets science and technology studies. Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Organization science, v.
Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press, Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, Making decisions on innovation: meetings or networks?. Creativity and Innovation Management, v. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quaterly, v. Managing and shaping innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press , Innovation management: a research overview.
London: Routledge, The management of technological innovation: strategy and practice. Perspectives on innovation management. The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Inverse instrumentality: how technologies objectify patients and players. Materiality and organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World. Innovation: exploring the knowledge base.
Research Policy, v. The Oxford handbook of innovation.
Organization, v. What do we mean by performativity in organizational and management theory? The uses and abuses of performativity. International Journal of Management Reviews, v. HULL, R. Editorial: innovation-but for whose benefit, for what purpose?. Sorting attachments: usefulness of sts in healthcare practice and policy. Science as Culture, v.
Towards an epistemological merger of design thinking, strategy and innovation. Acceso el ago. Invention, innovation, and emancipation: research worlds and trajectories of social change.